Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#81
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
"Trevor" wrote in message ... "Les Cargill" wrote in message ... 24 bit depth is good for tracking because of the additional 8 bits headroom. There's no converter ever made that will give 8 bits extra headroom, and never will be even with cryogenic cooling. Of course 3 or 4 bits can still be worthwhile. Your typical live performance has about 65-70 dynamic range. 8 bits equals about 48 dB. 65+48 = 113 dB. 70+48 = 118 dB. There are sub $200 products that come within a dB or 2 of the lower goal. 115-117 dB products under $250/channel have been around for at least 8 years. There are newer commercial products that have in the vicinity of 130 dB dynamic range. |
#82
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
"James T" wrote in message
... I've read through some archived r.a.p. threads where it was argued that 16 bit/44.1k had an inaudible affect on music, at least as far as the cited test went. I understand the merit in having more bits for multitrack ops, where internal math can lose bits. But now I'm curious about the widespread 'understanding' that 24-96 is better. Is there no merit whatsoever in final mix? Doing a proper DBT that relates to this question is actually very easy to do if you have a DAC capable of 24/96 that is accessible from a PC. Freeware DBT and resampling software is readily available. Scott gave the procedure as follows: "But try it yourself and see. Record at 24/96 then downsample to 44.1, then upsample to 96. Can you tell the difference between the 44.1 and the 96 ksamp/sec audio? " Another approach is to download one of your favorite recordings from HDTracks.com or other sites that offer 24/96 downloads, and perform the same sequence of operations. |
#83
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... In article , Trevor wrote: "Roy W. Rising" wrote in message Through the years of emerging technology I have concluded that usually it is possible to store more information than current reproducers can recover. There's more in the groove of an old 'record' than we could play/hear with a sharpend nail hooked to a megaphone. Since it was originally recorded to a disk master with a "sharpened nail" as well, any extra "information" is likely to be just as innacurate. Not at all. Listen to an acoustic photograph vs. a modern transcription of the same disc some time. Lower distortion, not so many internal horn resonances today. Technology got a lot better and it still keeps getting better. Right, but even if you reduce the replay errors to zero, all those present in the original recording/master/pressing still remain, that was my point. I'm not sure that this applies in the digital world, because for the first time with digital conversion systems, the recorder and the medium itself are no longer the bottleneck in terms of sound quality. But ask me in fifty years, I'll have a better idea then. I would not be surprised to discover that in fifty years, transducers are a whole hell of a lot better than they are today and recorders are mostly unchanged in concept and performance. Sadly I'm not so sure. Speakers and microphones have not improved all that much in the last 50 years compared to everything else. We may get lucky and find a whole new concept to exploit, but I doubt I'll be around to see it. I am extremely grateful however that recording technology is no longer the limitation it once was, and the expense is now trivial to what it once was! Trevor. |
#84
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
"James T" wrote in message ... On 16 Jun 2012 15:40:24 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote: James T wrote: I've read through some archived r.a.p. threads where it was argued that 16 bit/44.1k had an inaudible affect on music, at least as far as the cited test went. I understand the merit in having more bits for multitrack ops, where internal math can lose bits. But now I'm curious about the widespread 'understanding' that 24-96 is better. Is there no merit whatsoever in final mix? Try it for yourself and see. I may do that eventually, but I have presumed (perhaps wrongly) that the question has been thoroughly explored by those with greater means than my own. It has. You can find discussions of it in the archives of several different forums, including Hydrogen Audio. You can find discussions of it in the archives of this forum. Please see Google Groups. |
#85
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message ... On 6/16/2012 5:10 PM, James T wrote: I have presumed (perhaps wrongly) that the question has been thoroughly explored by those with greater means than my own. There have been demonstrations and presumably well conducted tests that prove both ways. That's self contradictory. There's only one real world out there, and anything that is actually proven will be consistently in agreement with it. It all boils down to human hearing, and humans all hear differently. Many if not all relevant properties of the human ear have well-known limitations that do not exceed known data points. And equally important, all perceive the same thing differently. Perception is personal, but the limits of human endurance is measurable, and its limits strongly tend to converge to certain data points. While the 4 minute mile was broken, the 2 minute mile seems very remote. |
#86
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message ... We already have Blu-ray audio at higher bit rates than CD. They haven't "replaced" CD yet of course, because most people realise it is an answer to a problem they don't really have. That could be because they don't know how good a recording can be. Or they sure as hell know their speakers are orders of magnitude worse than their CD player, even if they don't realise their listening room is often worse. Though I much prefer CD to LP, I've never been fully happy with the "sound" of CDs. Few of them come remotely close to the sound of my own live recordings -- including those made on cassette decks! Nothing like pride in your own work is there :-) SACD & BD recordings -- especially surround/multi-ch -- come much closer to what I expect a good (ie, realistic) recording to sound like. Good for you then. Trevor. |
#87
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
"Sean Conolly" wrote in message ... That could be because they don't know how good a recording can be. Which leads directly to another discussion that's been had he most people have never heard a really good recording, or really good speakers, or a really good live performance... I just love how when most people say "most people", they never mean themselves! :-) Trevor. |
#88
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
"Randy Yates" wrote in message ... Several years back, I purchased a DVD-Audio player and disks with the intention to check out the new format. I can't remember the exact disk, but I distinctly remember finding this to be the case, i.e., that at least one of the disks had changed the mixdown (e.g., brought the vocals forward, used some different reverb, or somesuch)! NOT apples-to-apples! Exactly, and what was truly a con job is all the disks that used slightly different master/mix for the CD layer of SACD disks to pretend the technical difference was really audible. You've got to hand it to the marketing people though :-) Trevor. |
#89
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message ... SACDs do, generally, sound different -- and "better" than CDs. WHY is another matter. Of course they souind different, the why is well known... And the "why" is...? Read the next line that you deliberately snipped, for the answer. Doing that simply makes you look even more foolish than you are already. Whether they sound "better" is purely up to the individual releases and listener preference. I disagree. Though SACDs vary, they are generally closer to "the real thing" than CD. Perhaps the few you have are, (because of the mastering not bit rate) or you are simply delusional. Trevor. |
#90
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
"William Sommerwerck" writes:
By the way, I invented the FIR filter almost 40 years ago. That's pretty neat! What was your application? De-convolution to correct speaker phase and transient errors. Very little work has been done on this, as most EQ aims to correct only amplitude errors. The guy who developed the Apogee speakers has apparently done some work along these lines. Don't know about the Apogee work. Have you read about Duane Cooper's (et al.) work in transaural processing? http://homepage.mac.com/cooperbauck/...transaural.pdf He was attempting (in the late 80s or so) a superset of your idea, namely deconvolving not only the speaker response but also the room response and pinna directional response, while also incorporating an interaural crosstalk canceller. Fascinating stuff! -- Randy Yates Digital Signal Labs http://www.digitalsignallabs.com |
#91
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
"Trevor" writes:
"Randy Yates" wrote in message ... Several years back, I purchased a DVD-Audio player and disks with the intention to check out the new format. I can't remember the exact disk, but I distinctly remember finding this to be the case, i.e., that at least one of the disks had changed the mixdown (e.g., brought the vocals forward, used some different reverb, or somesuch)! NOT apples-to-apples! Exactly, and what was truly a con job is all the disks that used slightly different master/mix for the CD layer of SACD disks to pretend the technical difference was really audible. You've got to hand it to the marketing people though :-) Amen, brother. Preaching to the choir. -- Randy Yates Digital Signal Labs http://www.digitalsignallabs.com |
#92
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... 24 bit depth is good for tracking because of the additional 8 bits headroom. There's no converter ever made that will give 8 bits extra headroom, and never will be even with cryogenic cooling. Of course 3 or 4 bits can still be worthwhile. Your typical live performance has about 65-70 dynamic range. 8 bits equals about 48 dB. 65+48 = 113 dB. 70+48 = 118 dB. There are sub $200 products that come within a dB or 2 of the lower goal. 115-117 dB products under $250/channel have been around for at least 8 years. Exactly, not quite 144dB however. There are newer commercial products that have in the vicinity of 130 dB dynamic range. Right, but that's as good as it gets at room temperature. Still at least 2-3 bits shy of the "8 bits more headroom" claimed. That was my point. Still a useful gain of around 4 bits in many cases. Of course you can gain even more "headroom" anyway by using two channels for each recording track and adding a pad to one. Something that I did many years ago when A-D boxes weren't what they are now. Trevor. |
#93
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
"William Sommerwerck" writes:
By the way, I invented the FIR filter almost 40 years ago. That's pretty neat! What was your application? De-convolution to correct speaker phase and transient errors. William, I'd like to pick your brain a bit. You must certainly be aware that a speaker's response is very location-dependent. For example, in an anechoic chamber and with a single speaker, the on-axis response is going to be different than 30 degrees off axis. And certainly you know that, in a typical listening room, the signal making it to the listener's ear is a composite of the direct path plus an infinite number of alternate paths, all at different speaker transmission responses and "reflection responses." Pretty complex. So, in your work in this area, what was your goal? To simply deconvolve the speaker's on-axis response? Or was there some sort of "power response" goal (i.e., an equalization of some function of the speaker's composite response in different directions)? -- Randy Yates Digital Signal Labs http://www.digitalsignallabs.com |
#94
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
Have you read about Duane Cooper's (et al.) work
in transaural processing? http://homepage.mac.com/cooperbauck/...transaural.pdf He was attempting (in the late 80s or so) a superset of your idea, namely deconvolving not only the speaker response but also the room response and pinna directional response, while also incorporating an interaural crosstalk canceller. Fascinating stuff! I know who Duane Cooper is/was, but I never heard of that work. Sounds like worthwhile research, though. |
#95
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
"Randy Yates" wrote in message
... "William Sommerwerck" writes: By the way, I invented the FIR filter almost 40 years ago. That's pretty neat! What was your application? De-convolution to correct speaker phase and transient errors. I'd like to pick your brain a bit. You must certainly be aware that a speaker's response is very location-dependent. For example, in an anechoic chamber and with a single speaker, the on-axis response is going to be different than 30 degrees off axis. And certainly you know that, in a typical listening room, the signal making it to the listener's ear is a composite of the direct path plus an infinite number of alternate paths, all at different speaker transmission responses and "reflection responses." Pretty complex. So, in your work in this area, what was your goal? To simply deconvolve the speaker's on-axis response? Or was there some sort of "power response" goal (i.e., an equalization of some function of the speaker's composite response in different directions)? Just to get the response on the primary axis correct. One thing at a time. If one speaker "sounds better" than another -- that is, it more-accurately reproduces the signal fed into it -- it is because it more-accurately reproduces the signal fed into it. Not because it interacts less with the room, or interacts in synergistic ways. |
#96
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
Perhaps the few {SACDs] you have * are, (because of
the mastering not bit rate) or you are simply delusional. You are certainly the master of intelligent conversation. * I have several hundred. |
#97
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
We already have Blu-ray audio at higher bit rates than CD.
They haven't "replaced" CD yet of course, because most people realise it is an answer to a problem they don't really have. That could be because they don't know how good a recording can be. Or they sure as hell know their speakers are orders of magnitude worse than their CD player, even if they don't realise their listening room is often worse. Tell you what, Trevor... Let's /pretend/ that I have an unlimited income and I'm in a gracious mood. I'm going to give you a pair of speakers free, gratis, no obligation. (Not /really/, of course. This is pretend.) You can have any system using conventional cone drivers, or any top-of-the-line electrostatic (such as QUAD or Martin-Logan). Which would you choose, and why? Trevor, you are what I call a "put-down artist". That is not a compliment. All you want to do is criticize and/or humiliate others. Do you really think I or anyone else is impressed -- or cowed? You're a worm who has nothing to contribute, and has no idea of how to intelligent discuss anything. |
#98
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message ... If one speaker "sounds better" than another -- that is, it more-accurately reproduces the signal fed into it -- it is because it more-accurately reproduces the signal fed into it. Not because it interacts less with the room, or interacts in synergistic ways. In fact a speaker that interacts differently with the room, may indeed "sound better" to some listeners, or worse, than another in that room, regardless of their anechoic performance. There's a reason some people actually like Bose speakers after all :-) Trevor. |
#99
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message ... Perhaps the few {SACDs] you have * are, (because of the mastering not bit rate) or you are simply delusional. You are certainly the master of intelligent conversation. Pity I can't say the same for you. Trevor. |
#100
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
Exactly, and what was truly a con job is all the disks
that used slightly different master/mix for the CD layer of SACD disks to pretend the technical difference was really audible. You've got to hand it to the marketing people, though. :-) Amen, brother. Preaching to the choir. Mr Yates... Do you believe that because a piece of equipment meets certain technical specifications it must necessarily "sound good"? If you say "yes", I can think of at least one amplifier you ought to hear. It stands to reason that there /must/ be a level of measurable errors, below which, a device becomes essentially transparent and neither contributes to nor takes away from the sound. Arny Krueger claims to know what such specs are, but steadfastly refuses to provide them, or describe the experiments he performed to measure them. |
#101
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
If one speaker "sounds better" than another -- that is, it
more-accurately reproduces the signal fed into it -- it is because it more-accurately reproduces the signal fed into it. Not because it interacts less with the room, or interacts in synergistic ways. In fact a speaker that interacts differently with the room, may indeed "sound better" to some listeners, or worse, than another in that room, regardless of their anechoic performance. There's a reason some people actually like Bose speakers after all :-) Baloney. Given rooms with reasonably "balanced" acoustics, the "better" speaker will invariably sound better. (This assumes that a speaker is not intentionally designed to interact with the room acoustics in some particular way.) |
#102
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message ... We already have Blu-ray audio at higher bit rates than CD. They haven't "replaced" CD yet of course, because most people realise it is an answer to a problem they don't really have. That could be because they don't know how good a recording can be. Or they sure as hell know their speakers are orders of magnitude worse than their CD player, even if they don't realise their listening room is often worse. Tell you what, Trevor... Let's /pretend/ that I have an unlimited income and I'm in a gracious mood. I'm going to give you a pair of speakers free, gratis, no obligation. (Not /really/, of course. This is pretend.) You can have any system using conventional cone drivers, or any top-of-the-line electrostatic (such as QUAD or Martin-Logan). Which would you choose, and why? The whole point is that no matter what the budget, and what I chose, they (and the room) would still be a far more limiting factor than what CD is capable of. Trevor, you are what I call a "put-down artist". That is not a compliment. All you want to do is criticize and/or humiliate others. Do you really think I or anyone else is impressed -- or cowed? You're a worm who has nothing to contribute, and has no idea of how to intelligent discuss anything. That's what all morons say when called on their delusional claims. If you can't understand the difference is in the changes made during mastering to different formats rather than the technical capabilities of those formats Vs human auditory capabilities, no one here will ever change your mind. To personally denigrate them simply makes you look foolish, not me. Trevor. |
#103
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
"William Sommerwerck" writes:
Exactly, and what was truly a con job is all the disks that used slightly different master/mix for the CD layer of SACD disks to pretend the technical difference was really audible. You've got to hand it to the marketing people, though. :-) Amen, brother. Preaching to the choir. Mr Yates... Do you believe that because a piece of equipment meets certain technical specifications it must necessarily "sound good"? Well, that's a loaded question! I admit that I do tend to think that way for things like preamps and receivers (e.g., SNRs, output impedance, dynamic power, etc.). Speakers are a whole different ballgame, though. And in all cases, I do believe the ear is the final judge. If you say "yes", I can think of at least one amplifier you ought to hear. You're presuming I don't have a tin ear... It stands to reason that there /must/ be a level of measurable errors, below which, a device becomes essentially transparent and neither contributes to nor takes away from the sound. OK, sure. Arny Krueger claims to know what such specs are, but steadfastly refuses to provide them, or describe the experiments he performed to measure them. OK. But I don't see how this relates to the discussion Trevor and I were having. -- Randy Yates Digital Signal Labs http://www.digitalsignallabs.com |
#104
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message ... If one speaker "sounds better" than another -- that is, it more-accurately reproduces the signal fed into it -- it is because it more-accurately reproduces the signal fed into it. Not because it interacts less with the room, or interacts in synergistic ways. In fact a speaker that interacts differently with the room, may indeed "sound better" to some listeners, or worse, than another in that room, regardless of their anechoic performance. There's a reason some people actually like Bose speakers after all :-) Baloney. Given rooms with reasonably "balanced" acoustics, the "better" speaker will invariably sound better. (This assumes that a speaker is not intentionally designed to interact with the room acoustics in some particular way.) Right, any speaker you consider better in a particular room, will sound better than a speaker you consider inferior in that room, to you! And your point is? :-) Trevor. |
#105
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
Randy Yates wrote:
You must certainly be aware that a speaker's response is very location-dependent. For example, in an anechoic chamber and with a single speaker, the on-axis response is going to be different than 30 degrees off axis. And certainly you know that, in a typical listening room, the signal making it to the listener's ear is a composite of the direct path plus an infinite number of alternate paths, all at different speaker transmission responses and "reflection responses." Pretty complex. So, in your work in this area, what was your goal? To simply deconvolve the speaker's on-axis response? Or was there some sort of "power response" goal (i.e., an equalization of some function of the speaker's composite response in different directions)? You CAN correct for some things which are not directionally-dependent. The thing is, even those things are often level dependent... speakers are not a linear system and the frequency response and phase response will change with level. Meyer has done a lot of work on using dsp to work out as much as possible of the errors which are not position-dependent. The end results sound kind of mechanical and artificial to me in many cases, but the idea does have promise. Thing is, I think Meyer was doing it more than 20 years back also... --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#106
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
Trevor writes:
Speakers and microphones have not improved all that much in the last 50 years compared to everything else. They are analog devices. Improvements in analog devices are always slow, incremental, and expensive. I expect that the gulf between the performance of analog components and the theoretical fidelity of the digital recording protocol will continue to widen over time. You can dramatically increase the fidelity of digital sound (or video, or anything) just by increasing the number of bits or samples, which costs very little ... but matching that fidelity at the endpoints of the chain may be extraordinarily expensive, if it's possible at all in practice. The advent of digital means that the only weak points in any system are the analog components at each end. I don't understand why someone does just measure the movements of test subjects' eardrums as they listen to various sounds. By comparing these measured movements with the actual sound waves as measured by more precise instruments, it should be possible to determine just how much fidelity is useful for human hearing. In other words, if the reproduced sound is closer to the original than the eardrum can follow, there's no point in going any further in recording fidelity. |
#107
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
"Trevor" wrote in message
... "Sean Conolly" wrote in message ... That could be because they don't know how good a recording can be. Which leads directly to another discussion that's been had he most people have never heard a really good recording, or really good speakers, or a really good live performance... I just love how when most people say "most people", they never mean themselves! :-) Most people have given up usenet, also :-) Our very presence here means we're not like 'most people'. Sean |
#108
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
Randy Yates wrote:
"William Sommerwerck" writes: And certainly you know that, in a typical listening room, the signal making it to the listener's ear is a composite of the direct path plus an infinite number of alternate paths, all at different speaker transmission responses and "reflection responses." Pretty complex. And unless digital processing (whichever flavour you prefer) is HUGELY flawed, then simply moving your head a few inches should impart far more significant sonic changes geoff |
#109
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
Don Pearce wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 08:50:00 +1200, "geoff" wrote: Don Pearce wrote: But it is at least correct, as opposed to yours in which you divide instead of multiply. The results are a bit different, you will appreciate. Um, isn't saying 44,800/24/s is pretty specific and easy, whereas 2.304Mb/s could be any number of sample rates or bit depths that you (probably) need additional information and a calcator to work out any one of the relevant paramters ? geoff You are still dividing instead of multiplying. It doesn't work if you divide. "My way' you don't need to do anything to know the exact spec. geoff |
#111
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
In fact a speaker that interacts differently with the room,
may indeed "sound better" to some listeners, or worse, than another in that room, regardless of their anechoic performance. There's a reason some people actually like Bose speakers after all. :-) Baloney. Given rooms with reasonably "balanced" acoustics, the "better" speaker will invariably sound better. (This assumes that a speaker is not intentionally designed to interact with the room acoustics in some particular way.) Right, any speaker you consider better in a particular room, will sound better than a speaker you consider inferior in that room, to you! And your point is? :-) That you don't know how to read. That is NOT what I said. AT ALL. Do you do this deliberately to annoy people? Or do you see/read what you want to see/read, rather than what's actually there? |
#112
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
You CAN correct for some things which are not
directionally-dependent. How? It would be more-pertinent to say "You CAN correct for some things which ARE directionally-dependent." Mr Yates, have you ever performed detailed speaker EQs? I have. My experiences weren't surprising. If the room is not particularly reverberant, * flattening the response at the listening position invariably reduces coloration, improves imaging, etc, etc. If the room is strongly reverberant, an EQ produces little or no subjective improvement. Mr Yates is expressing a belief that I call "the New England fallacy" -- that a speaker's basic sound quality is determined by its overall power response in the listening space. This is patently untrue, as is instantly audible with electrostatic and orthodynamic speakers. To put it a slightly different way... Henry Kloss didn't hire Arthur Janszen because he felt sorry for the guy. * I did not say "dead"! But some reading this will claim that I did. |
#113
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
Speakers and microphones have not improved all that
much in the last 50 years compared to everything else. That statement is a UXB dangerous to go near. I'm tempted to say... How do you know? How does anyone know? The best modern recordings are noticeably less-colored and more-lifelike than those of 50 years ago. Why? Is it because digital recording is generally superior to analog? That's probably the main reason. But it's hard to believe that mics -- even condenser mics -- haven't improved even a little. And dynamic speakers are grossly superior. |
#114
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
Tell you what, Trevor... Let's /pretend/ that I have an unlimited income
and I'm in a gracious mood. I'm going to give you a pair of speakers free, gratis, no obligation. (Not /really/, of course. This is pretend.) You can have any system using conventional cone drivers, or any top-of-the-line electrostatic (such as QUAD or Martin-Logan). Which would you choose, and why? The whole point is that no matter what the budget, and what I chose, they (and the room) would still be a far more limiting factor than what CD is capable of. Wrong. Stop by some time, and we'll play a variety of recordings on my un-EQ'd system in my untreated room. Trevor, you are what I call a "put-down artist". That is not a compliment. All you want to do is criticize and/or humiliate others. Do you really think I or anyone else is impressed -- or cowed? You're a worm who has nothing to contribute, and has no idea of how to intelligently discuss anything. That's what all morons say when called on their delusional claims. If you can't understand the difference is in the changes made during mastering to different formats rather than the technical capabilities of those formats Vs human auditory capabilities, no one here will ever change your mind. To personally denigrate them simply makes you look foolish, not me. You are functionally illiterate (which means you don't understand what you read), because that was exactly my point -- it's difficult to separate the sound of the source material from technical differences in the recording medium. Learn to read, learn to think -- then we can have a useful and productive discussion. I'm always amused by people who claim to know what the limitations of human hearing are. |
#115
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
Mr Yates... Do you believe that because a piece of
equipment meets certain technical specifications it must necessarily "sound good"? Well, that's a loaded question! I admit that I do tend to think that way for things like preamps and receivers (e.g., SNRs, output impedance, dynamic power, etc). Speakers are a whole different ballgame, though. And in all cases, I do believe the ear is the final judge. If you say "yes", I can think of at least one amplifier you ought to hear. You're presuming I don't have a tin ear... Why shouldn't I assume that? If you think you have a tin ear, you shouldn't be discussing sound quality. Find a Crown K-1 or K-2 (now mercifully discontinued). They're switching amps, designed by the respected Gerry Stanley. They have excellent specs, but sound horrible. They are proof (if needed) that we are not measuring the right things. It stands to reason that there /must/ be a level of measurable errors, below which, a device becomes essentially transparent and neither contributes to nor takes away from the sound. OK, sure. But I don't see how this relates to the discussion Trevor and I were having. I believe one of you brought up the issue of technical specs as being the major factor in determining subjective sound quality. |
#116
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
"Sean Conolly" wrote in message ... That could be because they don't know how good a recording can be. Which leads directly to another discussion that's been had he most people have never heard a really good recording, or really good speakers, or a really good live performance... I just love how when most people say "most people", they never mean themselves! :-) Most people have given up usenet, also :-) Our very presence here means we're not like 'most people'. Most people aren't :-) Trevor. |
#117
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message ... Speakers and microphones have not improved all that much in the last 50 years compared to everything else. That statement is a UXB dangerous to go near. I'm tempted to say... How do you know? How does anyone know? The best modern recordings are noticeably less-colored and more-lifelike than those of 50 years ago. Why? Is it because digital recording is generally superior to analog? That's probably the main reason. Exactly. But it's hard to believe that mics -- even condenser mics -- haven't improved even a little. Right, only a little. Hell many haven't changed much at all except for cheaper construction techniques, just look at the most common of all, the Shure SM58. And dynamic speakers are grossly superior. A very small number perhaps, but only at the high price end, and there were plenty of speakers made pre digital, which are still superior to the *vast* majority of speakers sold today. I'll put up a pair of Duntech Sovereigns made 30 years ago, against any speakers made today for less than 10 times the price. (and they'd still beat some at 20 times the price where *very* few people ever buy) OTOH I'll put up a $500 8 channel interface and $500 laptop against ANY 8 track tape recorder ever made at any price. (and even more price difference for 24 tracks!) Or how about a $300 CD player against a modern $100,000 turntable! Now *that's* where *big* improvements in performance, *and value* have really been made, not speakers and microphones. The average persons sound system has speakers no better than days gone by, just smaller, and often more of them for home theatre rather than HiFi. Trevor. |
#118
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message ... Tell you what, Trevor... Let's /pretend/ that I have an unlimited income and I'm in a gracious mood. I'm going to give you a pair of speakers free, gratis, no obligation. (Not /really/, of course. This is pretend.) You can have any system using conventional cone drivers, or any top-of-the-line electrostatic (such as QUAD or Martin-Logan). Which would you choose, and why? The whole point is that no matter what the budget, and what I chose, they (and the room) would still be a far more limiting factor than what CD is capable of. Wrong. In your opinion, which of course is never wrong, in your opinion! You are functionally illiterate Very funny coming from YOU! :-) :-) :-) Trevor. |
#119
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message ... OK, sure. But I don't see how this relates to the discussion Trevor and I were having. I believe one of you brought up the issue of technical specs as being the major factor in determining subjective sound quality. You believe many things that aren't based on fact unfortunately. Like the idea that you alone can determine what is *objectively* good, and "better sound quality" simply by casual listening, rather than what is in fact just your own subjective *personal preference*! (Good to see you use the term "subjective" at last however!!!) Trevor. |
#120
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
William Sommerwerck writes:
I'm tempted to say... How do you know? How does anyone know? It's the nature of analog vs. digital. It's practically cost-free to increase the number of bits in the digital realm, but progress in the analog realm is slow, expensive, and painful, since it is constrained by the laws of the physical world. The best modern recordings are noticeably less-colored and more-lifelike than those of 50 years ago. Why? Is it because digital recording is generally superior to analog? That's probably the main reason. There's really no such thing as "digital recording," in the sense of an action, only in the sense of representation. Everything is recorded using analog equipment. Then the analog recordings are analyzed and converted into digital form. The more quickly you can convert a recording to digital representation, the less deterioration there will be due to the limitations of physical, analog devices. But the quality doesn't improve--it's just that the _loss_ of quality _diminishes_, which isn't quite the same thing. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
DA-2496 | Pro Audio | |||
FA: AUDIOPHILE 2496 | Pro Audio | |||
FS: Aardvark Pro 2496 like new $299 | Pro Audio | |||
Samplitude 6 2496 and the 01X | Pro Audio | |||
types of sub boxes- merits of? | Car Audio |